Well, I seem to have found a nice niche here saying things that few want to hear, and I find I rather like it. Nobody sane would question my status as a Democrat, but given the fact that we've been a bit monolithic of late, I'll stir the pot a bit more.
We need the Blue Dogs! Or, well, at least some Blue Dogs. Frankly, the netroots has behaved like a pack of children, most of the time anyway, on this issue.
There we have it, heresy on Dailykos. What a way to start a first diary for a longtime lurker. My title is actually misleading - I have serious differences on a number of issues with John Barrow, my sometimes-representative, but given the speed with which the Democrats in the House and Senate are being attacked for caving on FISA I think it is appropriate.
I cannot for the life of me understand why any Democrat would vote for warrantless wiretapping.
I can easily understand why every Republican would. Republicans fully support the Bush Dictatorship in every way, including imperialism, torture, corruption, and warrantless wiretapping. If George Bush took the completely opposite positions (as he did before the 2000 election), they would support him too. They don't think and have no principles, they blindly follow their Fuhrer Leader.
But why would any Democrat - including our party leaders?
At the Presidential polling blog FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver analyzed 31 vulnerable House Democrats in conservative-leaning seats, and found 23 voted for warrantless wiretapping, while 8 voted against. Nate observes,
Did these Democrats vote for the FISA bill because they think it will help them to get re-elected? Or were they elected in 2006 because they were conservative enough Democrats to vote for this legislation in the first place?
We keep thinking that we have a two party system: Democrats and Republicans. But take a closer look. There are actually three prominent parties: Democrats, Republicans, and Blue Dogs. Now I know most people believe that the Blue Dogs are really Democrats. Wrong.
Just at a time when the Democrats have the opportunity to finally put a progressive in the White House, we find there really are not as many Democrats as we think. And some of them are not really that solidly behind Obama. Hillary's "hard working white Americans" form the Blue Dog base.
The Blue Dogs are a de facto third party. They meet as a separate group. They have their own agenda. In the House, as a block, they sometimes vote with the Democrats. But they also form a coalition with the Republicans. In this way the Blue Dogs wield a hell of a lot of power over the direction our nation takes, particularly on close votes, and they often oppose and obstruct the progressive agenda.
Hey, Blue Dogs! Nancy Boyda, one of the biggest surprise winners in 2006, is extremely popular in her very conservative district. She has a 68% approval, and is polling 17 points better than her leading Republican opponent.
Here's what she had to say when the Kansas Republicans took after her on FISA.
So all those ads the Frontiers of Freedom ran against her on her FISA position made a big difference, huh. She stood up to them and is more popular than ever. All that "concern" about how the Republicans would be mean to Blue Dogs in tough districts on this issue as their excuse to throw over the Constitution to protect AT&T doesn't work so much as an excuse any more, does it.
On the other hand, the group who really does care about this issue is us. A whole cadre of potential funders, door knockers, phone callers, and envelope stuffers, not to mention voters, who are ready and willing to help re-elect Democrats, particularly those in tough races.
Good luck getting any help from us, folks. And even better luck in 2010 in your primaries.
As Kagro pointed out the latest sob story we've got from Steny Hoyer on why he has to cave into the White House on telco amnesty is because "many Democrats" are forcing his hand. He's even saying that he personally is opposed to the compromise he's trying to ramrod through:
Hoyer said that if a deal was finalized, he would support it, even though he "would not like it." He said he would have preferred the original House version of the legislation which didn't include retroactive immunity for the phone companies.
Here's the thing, he's the majority leader and the majority of his caucus is opposed to amnesty. Nancy Pelosi is supposedly opposed to amnesty. Harry Reid is opposed to it, as is Dick Durbin. Barack Obama is opposed to it. And supposedly, so is Hoyer himself. So who is clamoring so hard from the Democratic party for amnesty? Not a one, so far.
We have seen Democrat Nancy Boyda, who most certainly represents a conservative district, arguing against it.
"Here's the question: Do we want the United States government spying on Americans without a warrant? Ladies and gentleman, that is the issue that's at stake here. I say absolutely no, we do not want the United State government spying on Americans without a warrant. But President Bush says that's ok.... and the Republicans in Congress are sticking with him.... Our democracy depends on open and honest debate, and this is nothing of the sort."
"I am not going to sign it," said Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.) a member of the Blue Dogs. "I just don’t think it is necessary."
Fellow Blue Dog Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.) agreed with Mahoney, saying he would not subvert the rules process by signing the petition.
"I like the House version of FISA better than the Senate bill anyway," added Arcuri.
Not one single Democrat has signed the discharge petition. It's a fact. You can look it up.
The majority of the Democratic caucus (House and Senate) and of the leaders don't want telco amnesty. If Hoyer can't stand up to a rump group in his caucus, some 20 members, as opposed to the other nearly 200, then maybe he shouldn't be majority leader.
This leads me to an effort being spearheaded by Glenn, Jane and a diverse group of bloggers and organizations to tell Hoyer and his cohorts that they're not only on the wrong side of their caucus, but on the wrong side of the American people. Here's Glenn:
As a result, there is a major new campaign beginning today aimed at Hoyer and a handful of other key members of Congress who enable telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping. In order to raise as much money as possible for this campaign -- far more than the $85,000 raised (and still being spent) in Chris Carney's district as a result of his support for warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty -- we are working to create an alliance with numerous organizations and factions across the ideological spectrum which oppose civil liberties erosions, as well as with as many blogs as possible....
For the moment, contributions can be made here. All the money raised will be spent exclusively on ad campaigns aimed at the short-term vulnerabilities of those in Congress responsible for delivering this indescribably tyrannical package of surveillance powers to the President and the accompanying corrupt gift to lawbreaking telecoms.
I encourage you to contribute to the effort, and join the more than 3,000 contributors who have raised more than $170,000 for this effort.
That hardly compares to the $14 million spent by the telcos on lobbying just in the first three months of this year. So I guess this lays it out pretty clearly for Hoyer and his pals. Who is going to have more sway? The majority of his caucus, his party leadership, and the party faithful (us), or the telcos?
No, not the boring, tired primary that was decided long ago -- although that one will be over next week too. I mean the important primary, one of the only important ones this year, one that has the potential to scare the conservative enablers in Congress into voting like real Democrats again. One that could reshape the behavior of the entire Blue Dog caucus. One that could drag forty votes that often go to the Republicans back over to our side. One that could help get real progressive legislation though the Congress next year, by showing all of DC that the appetite for change, for progress, and for progressive policy is real, and strong, and will not be denied. One that could cause conservative-leaning power brokers from Lieberman to Ben Nelson to Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel to take notice, one that would cause Tim Russert and Chris Matthews to understand that the demand for change must not be ignored. A primary that we should have won, and could still win, but -- and I'm serious here -- only if we get in gear today.
I'm talking about the primary against Bush Dog Leonard Boswell, being run in Des Moines and central Iowa by State Representative and grassroots progressive Ed Fallon.
Blue Dog (and virulent Bush Dog) John Barrow (GA-12) always thought he would be vulnerable from the right. So he moved so far right that he's usually the Democrat most likely to vote with the GOP in the entire Democratic caucus. CQ Politics reports that his political demise looks like it will come from the Georgia Democratic Party mainstream, not the far right. For the last few weeks he has called every African-American he knows to beg them to ask respected state Senator Regina Thomas to not run against him. And on May 2 even I got a letter from Barrow, begging for help! (after the jump)
One of our rare wins, on one of the most important issues -- preserving the Constitution and the rule of law by stopping the Senate telecom amnesty/warrantless wiretapping FISA legislation in the House -- is about to be thrown away. And the culprit is not Bush, or Cheney, or even Rockefeller or Hoyer -- it's Nancy Pelosi, so-called progressive lion.
I knew there was some good reason I was still subscribed to RedState's e-mail alerts.
The "Blue Dog" Democrats are the conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives. Twenty-one of the Blue Dogs signed a letter to Nancy Pelosi on January 28th urging her to move the bipartisan FISA legislation forward.
The legislation would allow the government to eavesdrop on phone calls made outside this country to other people outside this country, but whose calls are routed through this country (the majority of international phone calls are routed through the U.S.).
The Blue Dogs said the FISA legislation should include targeted immunity for phone carriers who help the government stop terrorists.
While the Blue Dogs were willing to sign the letter to Nancy Pelosi, they have been unwilling to actually sign a discharge petition, which would bring this matter to the floor of the House without Nancy Pelosi's consent.
Below are the names and phone numbers of the Blue Dogs who talk a good game, but fail to act. Please call them and urge them to sign the discharge petition on H.R. 5440.
So far no Democrats have been traitorous enough to actually sign that discharge petition, but it's not from a lack of effort on the part of the Right to try to force them to do it, as this e-mail will attest. There are signs of weakening among them, though. One of the 21 tried to sell us out on a vote in the House Intelligence Committee last week. It was either Bud Cramer or Leonard Boswell, both of whom signed onto that infamous Pelosi letter, and both of whom are on the Committee.
So this isn't an entirely quixotic effort by RedState. They think there are weak links in this group of 21 members, and they might be right. There are a lot more of us than there are RedStaters, so we can make this calling effort of theirs look puny in comparison. You know what to do with the numbers below the fold. Tell them do stay loyal to their party. Tell them to reject this effort by the Republicans, reject telco amnesty, and reject the Senate bill.
Um. Hi guys. I've been lurking around here since Winter 2006, but never really felt the need to write a diary. Until now, I guess. I don't have any breaking news. I don't have any primary banter.
Can't the Blue Dogs see their hypocrisy? After all their free passes they gave hundreds of billions for Iraq war funding, now they are threatening to hold up Jim Webb's GI Bill because the couple billion it could potentially cost is not offset with revenues. [UPDATE: The cost is apparently $50 billion initially, and $4 billion per year thereafter. This doesn't change the fact that this program is one that will pay for itself over time and that it would be very shortsided to subject it to pay-go rules, even if the war expenses were under the same restrictions, which they are not]
"Our hope is to pass the bipartisan Senate-passed FISA bill," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Steel said that would happen if Republicans collected 218 signatures on the petition or came close enough to put pressure on Democratic leaders to act.
Republicans will focus their efforts on Blue Dogs, especially the 21 conservatives who signed a January letter to Pelosi announcing their support for the Senate intelligence bill.
"Any Blue Dog on record as one of the 21 who signed the letter to Pelosi should sign the discharge petition," said Steel.
Hoyer is counting on his strong ties to Blue Dogs and their participation in talks about a compromise to forestall defections.
Vulnerable freshman Democrats and Blue Dogs say the issue demands action.
"Overall, it’s very important," said Rep. Chris Carney (D-Pa.), a freshman member of the Blue Dog Coalition who often votes against his leadership.
Note that Chris Carney is the only freshman to speak up here. And, in fact, some of the supposed vulnerable Dems have, in fact, specifically denied that they are joining with the Republicans in demanding action:
"I am not going to sign it," said Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.) a member of the Blue Dogs. "I just don’t think it is necessary."
Fellow Blue Dog Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.) agreed with Mahoney, saying he would not subvert the rules process by signing the petition.
"I like the House version of FISA better than the Senate bill anyway," added Arcuri.
So the question is, who's doing the tugging here, the frosh Blue Dogs or Hoyer? Obviously, the majority of the Blue Dog coalition can be controlled by leadership. They were back in March when only five of them defected on supporting the much better, telco amnesty-free House bill.
So why in the hell does this puny group of freshman concern trolls have a say in this at all? Why is Hoyer bending over backwards to find a "compromise" that will appease them?
We know it's not because it's a real national security issue. We know it's not because it's going to be an election issue--Bill Foster's victory already proved that. Could it be because Hoyer is trying to help out his Senate buddy Jello Jay in carrying the Protect AT&T Act?
There's been little public information released about where we stand on FISA, but there's rumors bubbling up in the background that something is afoot. We know the Blue Dogs are being pressured by Republicans to help them force the Cheney/Rockefeller bill on the House.
The other thing we know: the only Democrat who continues to talk about a FISA compromise is Steny Hoyer:
Congressional staffers from both parties met with administration officials Monday to discuss controversial electronic surveillance legislation, an aide to House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) confirmed, offering a ray of hope for the long-stalled bill....
Behind the scenes, Hoyer has emerged as a deal maker on the issue over the past several weeks, working as the go-between for liberal House Democrats unwilling to accept immunity and Senate Republicans who would block any bill that does not protect the telecoms from prosecution.
Hoyer is the only Democrat pushing FISA, on either side of the Hill. A new vote will only happen if Hoyer makes it happen. And if he gets his crowd of usual suspect Blue Dogs to join in.
Since it seems like we need to keep the reminding Mr. Hoyer just who it is he's trying to compromise with, we'll do it again.
"Republicans have dedicated significant time and resources in engaging regional and local media, editorial boards, and talk radio over the break," said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio. "We’re going to hold every Democrat accountable for their irresponsible actions on this bill, and we will ramp up the pressure until they do the right thing and pass the bipartisan Senate bill. In the end, we believe they will cave."
The only way that happens is through Hoyer and the 21 Blue Dogs who were stupid enough to put their name on a letter to Nancy Pelosi saying they wanted the Cheney/Rockefeller bill. When the House passed its version of FISA reform--without telco amnesty--16 of those signees did the right thing and voted with the majority. As did Hoyer.
You know what to do. Warm up your dialing finger and have at 'em. Urge Stoyer to leave well enough alone--we've won, for gawd's sake. Urge the rest of them to just say no to any effort to "compromise" on FISA. Contact information below the fold.
